Godlewska et al v. Human Development Association, Inc et al

Filing 289

ORDER, as referenced above, directing Clerk to enter final judgment as to City Defendants and staying case pending plaintiffs' appeal of that judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack on 3/19/2013. (Weiner, Amy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––X
ELZBIETA GODLEWSKA, KRYSTYNA BIELAWSKA,
BARBARA HATALA, BARBARA PILCH, and
BOLESLAW PRYZGODA, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
CV–03–3985 (RJD) (JMA)

-againstHDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,
d/b/a HDA, YECHILA GRUENWALD a/k/a YECHIEL
GRUENWALD individually and as Executive Director of
HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ZVI KESTENBAUM, MARINA VOSKOBOYNIKO,
GOLDA POKHIS a/k/a OLGA POKHIS, MARGARITA
ZILBERT, EVA FRIEDMAN, IRENA GADZHIYEVA,
SARAH JUROVIESKY, ELLA RASHKOVA, BELLA
SLOMIVC, RITA STRASHNOV, THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION and VERNA EGGLESTON, as
Commissioner of NYC Human Resources Administration,
Defendants.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––X

On January 2, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (the “Memorandum and
Order”) granting the motion by defendants the City of New York, New York City Human
Resources Administration, and Verna Eggleston as HRA Commissioner (together, the “City
Defendants”) for summary judgment, and denying the cross-motion by all plaintiffs for summary
judgment. In the Memorandum and Order, the Court fully adjudicated the City Defendants’
rights, finding that City Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ first and
third causes of action.
On February 5, 2013, I held a conference with the parties to discuss the status of the case
in light of that Memorandum and Order. At the conference, plaintiffs indicated their desire to

1

appeal the Memorandum and Order, and all parties stated that they would consent to my entering
final judgment as to City Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b), to permit plaintiffs’
appeal. The parties so consented on March 14, 2013. Also at the conference, all parties
consented to my staying this case pending appeal, which consent City Defendants reiterate in
their March 14, 2013 letter to the Court.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b) provides that “When an action presents more than one claim for
relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as
to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that
there is no just reason for delay.”
There is no just reason for a delay in entering final judgment as to City Defendants. In
the Memorandum and Order, the Court fully adjudicated City Defendants’ rights, finding that
City Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ first and third causes of
action. The next phase of this litigation will involve further discovery, motion practice, and a
potential trial on issues relating to the remaining defendants’ liability, the appropriateness of
class treatment, and damages.

Having found, in the Memorandum and Order, that City

Defendants are not a joint employer of plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that this next phase
should not involve City Defendants. Entering final judgment as to City Defendants, and staying
this action pending appeal of that judgment, will ensure that the next phase of the litigation
involves only, and all, those defendants the Circuit determines belong in the case, thereby
sparing all parties prejudice. The Court’s dual goals of efficiently managing the case and
preventing prejudice warrant this determination.

2

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter final judgment as to
the three City Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b), and the case is hereby stayed
pending appeal of that judgment.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: March,19, 2013
Brooklyn, New York
____________________/s/_____________
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3